GRAY v. STATE (2026)

Jeffrey Gray appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Buchanan County, Missouri (“motion court”) denying his pro se Rule 29.15 motion as untimely. The motion court denied Gray's motion without appointing counsel. The State concedes the judgment was error and the case should be remanded. We agree. The motion court's judgment is reversed and remanded for appointment of counsel and further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural History

Gray was convicted on two counts of first-degree statutory sodomy. On March 4, 2024, he was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. Gray, represented by the public defender, appealed his conviction. This Court affirmed in State v. Gray, 716 S.W.3d 283 (Mo. App. W.D. 2025). On August 6, 2025, this Court issued its mandate.

On September 2, 2025, Gray timely filed a pro se motion for post-conviction relief. The motion included a signed and notarized in forma pauperis affidavit asserting Gray had no income and no way to pay an attorney. The following day, the Buchanan County Circuit Clerk (“Clerk”) sent Gray a letter affirming it had received his pro se motion and directing Gray to complete and return the enclosed Confidential Case Filing Information Sheet (“CCFIS”) no later than October 3, 2025. The letter specified “failure to provide all of the required information [would] result in this form being returned to you and a delay in processing your case filing.”

On October 22, 2025, Gray refiled his pro se motion for post-conviction relief. The refiled motion was identical to the earlier motion and attached a completed in forma pauperis affidavit. The following day, Clerk sent Gray a letter confirming receipt of the October 22, 2025 pro se motion.¹ Like the September letter, the October letter informed Gray he needed to complete and return the enclosed CCFIS and failure to provide all the required information would result in the form being returned and a delay in processing the filing. In contrast to the September letter, however, the October letter added a final sentence stating, “[i]f the required [CCFIS] and payment are not received by November 24, 2025, your paperwork will be returned to you and the case considered disposed.”

Gray never filed the CCFIS form. On December 1, 2025, a docket entry dismissed Gray's case “for not filing in a timely manner.” Clerk received a letter from Gray on February 23, 2026 stating he had received no updates or communications from the court or the public defender and asserting “[i]t doesn't appear I have [ ] an adequate representative to represent me in this matter.”

Gray appeals the dismissal of his post-conviction proceeding.

Standard of Review

Appellate review of a motion court's action on a motion for post-conviction relief is limited to whether the motion court's findings and conclusions are clearly erroneous. Scott v. State, 719 S.W.3d 723, 725 (Mo. banc 2025).

Analysis

Gray raises four points on appeal. Gray's first point claiming error for failure to appoint counsel is dispositive; we need not address his remaining points.² A post-conviction movant has the right to be represented by counsel if he is indigent. Rule 29.15(e);³ Williams v. State, 494 S.W.3d 638, 641 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016). A motion court must appoint counsel for a movant who indicates in his post-conviction motion that he seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis and provides the corresponding affidavit. Id. at 642.

Here, Gray was represented by a public defender at trial and on direct appeal. Gray timely filed his pro se motion for post-conviction relief and attached a properly completed in forma pauperis affidavit. He thereby qualified as indigent for purposes of Rule 29.15. However, no public defender was appointed or entered an appearance on Gray's post-conviction motion.⁴ Appointment of counsel was mandatory. Corcran v. State, 732 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Mo. App. S.D. 2026); Bishop v. State, 566 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). Indeed, the State concedes that the motion court clearly erred in not appointing counsel and concurs its judgment should be reversed.

To the extent the motion court relied on Gray's failure to complete the CCFIS and provide payment as the basis for dismissing Gray's post-conviction motion, such reliance was error. Rule 29.15 contains no such prerequisite. Any purported reliance on Rule 4.07 is similarly misplaced. Rule 4.07 requires filing an information sheet as part of Missouri's automated case management system. Appointed counsel could have completed a filing information sheet if one was needed.

Point I is granted.

Conclusion

The motion court's judgment dismissing Gray's pro se motion for post-conviction relief is reversed. The case is remanded to the motion court for appointment of counsel to represent Gray and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The confirmation did not address the untimely refiling of the pro se motion, which occurred after the October 3, 2025 deadline in the Clerk's previous letter.

2.   Because we remand the case for appointment of counsel, we need not address movant's allegations of error on the issues of timeliness, failure to file the CCFIS, and dismissing the case before filing of the amended motion for post-conviction relief (Points II - IV).

3.   All rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2024), the version applicable to Gray's criminal trial, unless otherwise noted.

4.   The appellate public defender filed a notice of appeal on March 6, 2026, specifically to appeal the motion court's dismissal of Gray's underlying 29.15 case. Counsel's notice of appeal does not remedy the underlying failure to appoint counsel nor should it limit the protections afforded by the 29.15 abandonment doctrine. See Tolentino-Geronimo v. State, 707 S.W.3d 731, 739 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (e-filing a motion without participating in any proceedings as counsel insufficient to trigger entry of appearance).

Lisa White Hardwick, Judge

All Concur.